Michael Fournier says: >Don't worry Winston, They did consummate their marriage. >Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. > And he gave him the name Jesus. And Marty Helgesen replied: :The word "until" does not necessarily mean Mary and Joseph consummat- :ed their marriage after Jesus was born. There are other instances in :the Bible where the word "until" is used in contexts in which it is :obvious that the situation will continue after the event linked to :"until," such as (Matt 22:44 NIV). [...] Another is 2 Sam 6:23 I recognize now: your apology is a prepared one, poised to the word "until" and aimed at the ignorant Protestants who constantly come up with it as a prooftext. But the commentary of 1Cor 3:15 in my Catholic Bible translation (Hungarian, 1973, following the Jerusalem Bible) says: "This text is frequently used for proving the existence of purgatory, "yet it is more clearly expressed in Mt 12:32 and 18:34. And what do we find in Mt 18:34? "And his lord being angry, delivered him to the tormentors "till he paid all that was owing to him. According to the traditional (mis)interpretation of this verse, the word "till" PROVES purgatory. Apart from that it is simply not true (because poor servant had no money to pay the ten thousand talents), you yourself gore the official proof fiercely and tread it under foot, saying that {"A doesn't happen till B happens" doesn't mean "B ensues necessarily after A had taken place"}. So your "until" argument works against the doctrine of Purgatory. Grammar cuts both ways. I propose you should rather bring more serious kinds of arguments, like: :>The whole basis for their supposed celibate marriage is based on the :>idea that sex is dirty and would have corrupted the blessed virgin. :The word "celibate" means unmarried, especially unmarried because of :a religious vow. We are talking about an unconsummated marriage. :That aside, your conjecture about the reason for the doctrine is :incorrect. You are undermining official Catholic doctrine!! 'The Church Teaches', dogmatic theology textbook, with all the necessary imprimaturs and other accessories, quotes pope Siricius sending a letter to Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica, (392) with the following sentences: "We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the "doctrine about children of Mary, and Your Holiness was right "in rejecting the idea that any other offspring should come "from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according "to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN TO BE "BORN OF A VIRGIN IF HE HAD JUDGED THAT SHE WOULD BE SO INCONTINENT "AS TO TAINT THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE BODY OF THE LORD, THE HOME OF "THE ETERNAL KING WITH THE SEED OF HUMAN INTERCOURSE. "Anyone who proposes this is merely proposing the unbelief "of the Jews saying that Christ could not be born of a virgin. "For if they accept the doctrine on the authority of the priests "that Mary had a number of children, then they will strive "with greater effort to destroy the truths of faith. Denzinger reference number: 91. I repeat for clarity what you happened to miss in your argument: "...TO TAINT THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE BODY OF THE LORD, THE "HOME OF THE ETERNAL KING WITH THE SEED OF HUMAN INTERCOURSE. or in Roy Deferrari's translation: "...that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute "that generative chamber of the Lord's body, the palace of "the eternal king. I have a major handicap compared to you: I'm Hungarian. I'm not the definitive authority on the meaning of TAINT or POLLUTE. My dictionaries, however, offer me significant help, and attest that Mike Fournier is correct in paraphrasing pope Siricius' letter with the following words: :>...sex is dirty and would have corrupted the blessed virgin. Yes, both Mike and Siricius speak about corrupting Mary's womb. Both consider that to avoid it - is the very basis of the dogma. They unanimously testify against you, who, in turn, reject the authority of both. I understand it with regard to Mike, but why do you reject the solemn words of the pope? >You won't find anything in scripture to support the idea that Mary >remained a virgin. :Let's start with a parable. A certain young woman worked in a large :business office. One evening after work she went to dinner with her :boyfriend. After dinner he asked her to marry him, and when she :accepted, he gave her a large engagement ring. The next morning she :went into her office and displayed her ring to her co-workers, say- :ing, "Rejoice with me, for I am engaged to be married." And her :friends did gather around her with many words of congratulations and :good wishes. But when one of her friends said, "I hope you have :nice, healthy children," she was puzzled and replied, "How can I have :children? I am a virgin?" And her friend replied, "Yes, you are a :virgin now, but after you are married you won't be a virgin. You and :your husband will have intercourse. That's how you can have chil- :dren." "Oh," said the young woman, "I never thought of that". :That is a silly parable, isn't it? Now reread Luke 1:26-38, :especially v. 34 ("'How shall this be,' Mary asked the angel, :'since I am a virgin?'" NIV) This means nothing but that she spoke about her actual state of virginity. "I am a virgin" is more precisely translated as "I know not a man" which means "I have never had an intercourse with any man yet" rather than "I promised to abstain from sex." Your parable is forced. Mary's words "How is it possible, for I know not a man" can be explained without the vow hypothesis, too. For example, with the hypothesis that she considered the conception of her Son to be happening sooner than Joseph married her. This one seems to be backed up by Luke 1:46-55, where Mary speaks about God having dealt with her in the past. (vv. 48-49) :It would make no sense for a young woman who was engaged to be mar- :ried to ask how she could have a child unless she had resolved not to :consummate her marriage. Joseph surely didn't know about this hypothetical vow. For if he had then obviously the PRIESTS in the presence of whom this vow had been taken could have posed tough questions to him. It is most probable that Joseph was satisfied with the report of the angel for the simple reason that he didn't have to face ANYTHING like an awkward investigation in front of the priests for breach of vow (see Eccl. 5:3-5). In a normal marriage a childbirth isn't a shameful thing which needs explanation, but in a hypothetical "Josephine" marriage obviously it is. Now, if Joseph was ignorant of his wife's hypothetical vow than we have the following interesting situation: Mary had a vow to remain a virgin, yet she DIDN'T tell it to her husband. And God FORCED Joseph to take the responsibility for her broken vow in the public. Note, they couldn't just tell the priest what the angel told them! In the eyes of the priests, the infant Jesus was the living proof of Mary's breach of vow. And it's quite expectable that the priests, pharisees and scribes would have striven to separate them because their marriage proved harmful to the vow. Furthermore, if they had continued in this lustful and invalid marriage they would have been excommunicated and lived as despised people, so no one would have said that "Oh, this Jesus is the son of Joseph the carpenter and of Mary!" Rather they would have been likely to say "This Jesus is the infamous one whose mother took a vow to remain virgin but she ... ... ... Phew!" Try to picture the hatred that would befall them in the likeness of the huge amount of pamphlets about Martin Luther's (a previous monk's) marriage with Katherina Bora (a previous nun). These were not congratulating postcards. :Why would a woman get engaged if she intended to remain a virgin? :In today's society she could be a single career-woman. Even in earlier :Christian centuries, when careers for women outside the home were not :common, a woman who wanted to consecrate her virginity to God could :enter a convent. In first century Nazareth there was a notable :shortage of convents. It's laughable how you draw a parallel between female convents where usually no male was allowed to turn up and the Jewish marriage! Realize please that the most fitting way of consecrating one's virginity to God is . Provision? Perhaps the Temple...? :When Jesus was on the Cross he gave His mother into the care of St. John :[...] If Mary had other children, they would have taken care of her. Of course this reasoning leads to the conclusion that those mentioned as brothers of Jesus and with whom Mary was together in Mk 3:31-35 were either dead or would refuse to take care of Mary. For if they were beside Mary as relatives (allowing even as not sons) when she faced no hardship, why do you think they would have left her starve in times of trouble? What's the logic behind it? No, the reason why Jesus entrusted Mary to John was connected with faith. John was Christian while Jesus' brothers weren't. So the Lord decided to give His mother to the care of His beloved disciple and not to unbelievers. >If either one of them had a gift of celibacy they should have remained >single according to Paul. 1 Cor 7:32-34. :However, God intended Mary to give birth to Jesus, God incarnate, :conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus was not going :to reveal His deity as a baby, Mary had to have a husband. You fail :to recognize that the unique circumstances of the Incarnation present :reasons why God would make special arrangements, such as giving both :Joseph and Mary the gift of consecrated virginity in marriage. Your assumptions bring about several difficulties. You invent "virginal vow", which is never-ever mentioned in the text, and to resolve the problems springing up immediately from this ill supposition, you introduce the concept of virginal marriage. A thing to which every Bible-reading person should burst out with laughter. A marriage of a young couple without intercourse was a complete nonsense in that society. So it's the simplest way to suppose they lived in marriage as other millions did. Ferenc Nemeth